Feeds:
Posts

## The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer

Not very long ago, I wrote two rather long posts centered around the charismatic nuclear physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer:

>> Peace (Part three of this post – The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer)
>> American Prometheus

Since I have already written considerable amounts on Oppenheimer, I wouldn’t write more, though  I could write more. I would request readers to have a look at the above two posts.

_____

[J. Robert Oppenheimer]

Click to Enlarge

Just today my friend Rod informed me of a movie on Oppenheimer. Rod’s pretty much a hawk on the Internet. I suspect he either defies causality or has a number of top-secret contacts  as he comes to know of stuff before it is posted on the web. ;-)

_____

Robert Oppenheimer, once an inspiring character and a charismatic figure was a broken man after the security hearings of 1954, he was never the same person again. The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer is a very good BBC horizon like documentary on his life with a focus on the security hearings provided by PBS. It explores why Oppenheimer had to go through all the humiliation after doing such a great service to his country. It can be watched for free, even the transcripts are available here.

Click on the above image to watch the movie

The introduction to the movie goes like this:

J. Robert Oppenheimer was brilliant, arrogant, proud, charismatic — and a national hero. Under his leadership during World War II, the United States succeeded in becoming the first nation to harness the power of nuclear energy to create the ultimate weapon of mass destruction — the atomic bomb. But after the bomb brought the war to an end, in spite of his renown and his enormous achievement, America turned on him, humiliated him, and cast him aside. The question this film asks is, “Why?”

“The country asked him to do something and he did it brilliantly, and they repaid him for the tremendous job he did by breaking him.”
— Marvin L. Goldberger, Los Alamos scientist and former director, The Institute for Advanced Studies

AMERICAN EXPERIENCE presents The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer, featuring Academy Award-nominated actor David Strathairn (Good Night and Good Luck, The Bourne Ultimatum) as Robert Oppenheimer. From multiple Emmy Award-winning producer David Grubin (RFK, LBJ, Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House Divided), The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer features interviews with the scientist’s former colleagues and eminent scholars to present a complex and revealing portrait of one of the most important and controversial scientists of the twentieth century. The two-hour film traces the course of Oppenheimer’s life: his rarefied childhood, his troubled adolescence, his emergence as one of America’s leading nuclear physicists, his leadership of the Los Alamos laboratory, and his tragic humiliation

_____

As is my experience, there would be some people around who would think that Oppenheimer was a moral monster as he was instrumental in getting the bomb made and that his preachings on peace were just hypocrisy. I would not debate on that as I am spent on the matter. For knowing what I have to say on the matter I would direct the reader to this post by me – Peace (Please have a look at the third part of that post). Also Oppenheimer is not just about the bomb, he did some high quality work in theoretical physics as well.

[JRO Smoking, Oppenheimer was a chain smoker all of his life. It turned out to be his un-doing. He died of throat cancer]

Coming back, I liked the movie quite a bit in spite of the fact that most of what is in the movie I already read about in American Prometheus (that’s obvious isn’t it?). Oppenheimer is played by David Straithairn and this 110 minute movie has been directed by David Grubin. Just like American Prometheus, the “dialogs” in the movie are from the actual transcripts of the security hearings of 1954. The movie has some rare video sequences that I have always wanted to see, like for instance Oppenheimer’s short speech after getting the Fermi Prize.

_____

I would have loved to write more on Oppenheimer and his life and what I get to learn from it, but I don’t think it would be a bright idea to put some very personal observations and lessons on a public platform. I might choose to do that sometime later maybe.

I’d direct you all to have a look at the movie, it has lessons for all of us in difficult times. Not just on an individual level but on a national level too. We have a lot to learn from the past.

_____

Related Posts:

_____

Onionesque Reality Home >>

Pete Skomoroch of Datawrangling admits that work and other commitments have made him cut down on blogging significantly. However every now and then, he comes up with posts that literally show the astonishing amounts of sustained efforts put in by him.

Though the posting frequency is very low, It still qualifies as one of my favorite blogs simply because it is of great help to me.

Last week, he posted a notification that he had updated his old post which indexed a very large number of datasets on various topics/fields/projects. This post is an absolute life saver.

### Some Datasets Available on the Web – Data Wrangling Blog

Click above to follow

Whenever I have searched for datasets for my problem/instructional/experimental requirements, I have almost always landed on Pete’s page.

Please check that link out for sure! I maintain a list largely constructed using the Data-Wrangling blog for face recognition. And since I have written two posts on face recognition before this one, it makes perfect sense to post that list.

_____

Some Datasets for Face Recognition/Authentication/Detection purposes:

6. The AR Face Database (126 People, over 4000 color images, different illumination conditions, facial expressions and occlusions, two sessions per person)

7. Olivetti Research Limited (a database of about 400 images).

8. University of Berne, Switzerland Face Database (Frontal images of 30 people, 10 images for each with different orientation. Profile images of the same 30 people, 5 images for each).

9. University of Oulu – Physics Face Database (125 faces in 16 different illumination and camera calibration conditions, additional 16 if the person wears glasses).

10. The Georgia Tech Face Database (Images of 50 different subjects taken over two three sessions)

11. The Yale Database (One of the most widely used! 165 grayscale images of 15 indivduals)

12. The Yale Database B (5760 single light source images of 10 subjects in 576 viewing conditions )

13. Labeled Faces in the Wild (U-Mass, For the problem of unconstrained facial recognition. With 13000 images collected from the web, two different images for some individuals)

15. University of Sheffield Face Database (564 images of 20 individuals, mixed race, gender and appearance)

16. University of Essex Face Database (total 7900 images of 395 individuals with 20 images each )

17. Indian Face Database (Collected at IIT-K, 40 subejcts with 11 different poses)

21. The MIT-CBCL Database (Used in a previous post by me. Face Images of 10 subject. Huge and rather simplistic database )

23. Facial Expression Database (Cohn-Kanade-AU-Coded Facial Expression Database. Image data consists of 500 image sequences from 100 subjects)

24. AT&T Database (10 different images each of 40 different subjects)

26. BJUT 3D Face Database (500 individuals – 250 males and 250 females, 3-D Face Data)

29. CAS-PEAL Face Database (99,594 images if 1040 individuals, 595 males and 445 females with varying pose, expression, accessory and lighting)

33. 3D_RMA (3-D Face Image Database)

34. Equinox (Human Identification at a Distance)

I would try to edit this post when I get the time and insert details for each database to facilitate ease in navigation. I apologize for not doing so right away, I did not do so as it is a very time consuming process.

_____

PS: I was tempted to re-blog the list by Pete, but I decided against it. It is his work, he deserves all the kudos!

_____

Onionesque Reality Home >>

## Face Recognition in Bees

I have been following Dr Adrian Dyer’s work for about a year. I discovered him and his work while searching on the Monash University website for research on vision, ML and related fields when a friend of mine was thinking of applying for a PhD there. Dr Dyer is a vision scientist and a top expert on Bees. His present research is based on investigating aspects of insect vision and  how insects make decisions in complex colored natural environments.

His current findings (published just about a  month or so back) could have important cues on how to make improvements in computer based facial recognition systems.

[Thermographic Image of a Bumblebee on a flower showing temperature difference : Image Source ]

_____

When i read about Dr Dyer’s most recent work I was instantly reminded of a rather similar experiment on pigeons done almost a decade and a half back by Watanabe et al [1] .

Digression: Van Gogh, Chagall and Pigeons

Allow me to take a brief digression and have a look at that classic experiment before returning to Bees. The experiment by Watanabe et al is my favorite when i have to initiate a general talk on WHAT is pattern recognition and generalization etc.

In the experiment, pigeons were placed in a skinner box and were trained to recognize paintings by two different artists (eg Van Gogh and Chagall). The training to recognize paintings by a particular artist was done by giving a reward on pecking when presented paintings by that artist.

_____

The pigeons were trained on a marked set of paintings by Van Gogh and Chagall. When tested on the SAME set they gave a discriminative ability of 95 %.  Then they were presented with paintings by the same artists that they had not previously seen. The ability of the pigeons to discriminate was still about 85%, which is a pretty high recognition rate. Interestingly this performance wasn’t much off human performance.

What this means is that pigeons do not memorize pictures but they can extract patterns (the “style” of painting etc) and can generalize from already seen data to make predictions on data never seen before. Isn’t this really what Artificial Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines do? And there is a lot of research going on to work to improve the generalization of these systems.

_____

Coming Back to Bees:

Dr Adrian Dyer’s group has been working on the visual information processing in miniature brains, brains that are much smaller than a primate brain. And honeybees provide a good model for working on such brains. One reason being that a lot about their behavior is known.

Their work has mostly been on color information processing in bees and how it could lend cues  for improvement in vision in robotic systems. Investigations have shown that the very small Bee brain can be taught to recognize extremely difficult/ complex objects.

_____

Color Vision in Bees [2] :

Research by Dr Dyer’s group on color vision in bees has provided key insights on the relationship between the perceptive abilities of bees and the flowers that they frequent. As an example it was known that flowers had evolved particular colors to suit the visual system of bees, but it was not known how it was that certain flower colors were extremely rare in nature. The color discrimination abilities of the Bees were tested by making a virtual meadow. There was high variability in the strategies used by bees to solve problems, however the discriminative abilities of the Bees were somewhat comparable to that of the Human sensory abilities. This research has shown not only how plants evolve flower colors to attract pollinators but also on what is the nature of color vision systems in nature and what are their limitations.

_____

Recognition of Rotated Objects (Faces) [3] :

The ability to recognize 3-Dimensional objects in natural environments is a challenging problem for visual systems especially in condition of rotation of object, variation in lighting conditions, occlusion etc. The effect of rotation on an object sometimes may cause it to look more dissimilar when compared to its rotated version than a non-rotated different object. Human and primate brains are known to recognize novel orientations of rotated objects by a method of interpolating between stored views. Primate brains perform better when presented with novel views that can be interpolated to from stored views than those novel views that required extrapolation beyond the stored views. Some animals, for example pigeons perform equally well on interpolated and extrapolated views.

To test how miniature brains, such as in Bees would deal with the problem posed by rotation of objects, Dr Dyer’s group presented Bees a face recognition task.  The bees were trained for different views (0, 30 and 60 degrees) of two similar faces S1 and S2, these are enough for getting an insight on how the brain solves the problem of a view with which it has no prior experience. The Bees were trained with face images from a standard test for studying vision for human infants.

[Image Source – 3]

Group 1 of bees was trained for 0 degree orientation and then was given a non-reward test on the same view and that of a novel 30 degree view.

Group 2 was trained for 60 degree orientation and then was tested on the same view (non-reward) and a novel 30 degree view.

Group 3 was trained for both the 0 degree and 60 degree orientations and then was tested on the same and novel 30 degree interpolation visual stimuli.

Group 4 was trained with both 0 degree and 30 degree orientations and then was tested on the same and also the novel 60 degree extrapolation view.

Bees in all of the four groups were able to recognize the trained target stimuli well above the chance values. But when presented with novel views Group 1 and Group 2 could not recognize novel views, while Group 3 could. They could do so by interpolating between the 0 degree and the 60 degree views. Group 4 too could not recognize novel views presented to it, indicating that Bees could not extrapolate from the 0 and 30 degree training to recognize faces oriented at 60 degrees.

The experiment puts forth that a miniature brain can learn to recognize complex visual stimuli by experience by a method of image interpolation and averaging. However the performance is bad when the stimuli required extrapolation.

_____

Bees performed poorly on images that were inverted. But in this regard they are in good company,  even humans do not perform well when images are inverted. As an illustration consider these two images:

How similar do these two inverted images look to be at first glance? Very similar? Let’s now have a look at the upright images. The one on the left below corresponds to the image on the left above.

The upright images look very different, even though the inverted images looked very similar.

I would recommend an exercise on rotating the image on the right to its upright position and back, please follow this link for doing so. This was a good illustration of the fact that the human visual system does not perform AS well with inverted images.

_____

The findings show that despite the constrained neural resources of the bee brain (about 0.01 percent as compared to humans) they can perform remarkably well at complex visual recognition tasks. Dr Dyer says this could lead to improved models in artificial systems as this test is evidence that face recognition does not require an extremely advanced nervous system.

The conclusion is that the Bee brain, which is small (about 850,000 neurons) can be simulated with relative ease (as compared to what was previously thought for complex pattern analysis and recognition) for performing rather complex pattern recognition tasks.

On a lighter note, Dr Dyer also says that his findings don’t justify the adage that you should not kill a bee otherwise its nest mates will remember you to take revenge. ;-)

_____

References and Recommended Papers:

[1] Van Gogh, Chagall and Pigeons: Picture Discrimination in Pigeons and Humans in “Animal Cognition”, Springer Varlag – Shigeru Watanabe.

[2] The Evolution of Flower Signals to Attract Pollinators – Adrian Dyer.

[3] Insect Brains use Image Interpolation Mechanisms to Recognise Rotated Objects in “PLos One” – Adrian Dyer, Quoc Vuong.

[4] Honeybees can recognize complex images of Natural scenes for use as Potential Landmarks – Dyer, Rosa, Reser.

_____

Onionesque Reality Home >>

## Face Recognition using Eigenfaces and Distance Classifiers: A Tutorial

Why?

Two Reasons:

1. Eigenfaces is probably one of the simplest face recognition methods and also rather old, then why worry about it at all? Because, while it is simple it works quite well. And it’s simplicity also makes it a good way to understand how face recognition/dimensionality reduction etc works.

2. I was thinking of writing a post based on face recognition in Bees next, so this should serve as a basis for the next post too. The idea of this post is to give a simple introduction to the topic with an emphasis on building intuition. For more rigorous treatments, look at the references.

_____

Introduction

Like almost everything associated with the Human body –  The Brain, perceptive abilities, cognition and consciousness, face recognition in humans is a wonder. We are not yet even close to an understanding of how we manage to do it. What is known is that it is that the Temporal Lobe in the brain is partly responsible for this  ability. Damage to the temporal lobe can result in the condition in which the concerned person can lose the ability to recognize faces. This specific condition where  an otherwise normal person who suffered some damage to a specific region in the temporal lobe loses the ability to recognize faces is called prosopagnosia. It is a very interesting condition  as  the perception of faces remains normal (vision pathways and perception is fine) and the person can recognize people by their voice but not by faces. In one of my previous posts, which had links to a series of lectures by Dr Vilayanur Ramachandran, I did link to one lecture by him in which he talks in detail about this condition. All this aside, not much is known how the perceptual information for a face is coded in the brain too.

_____

A Motivating Parallel

Eigenfaces has a parallel to one of the most fundamental ideas in mathematics and signal processing – The Fourier Series. This parallel is also very helpful to build an intuition to what Eigenfaces (or PCA) sort of does and hence must be exploited. Hence we review the Fourier Series in a few sentences.

Fourier series are named so in the honor of Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (Generally Fourier is pronounced as “fore-yay”, however the correct French pronunciation is “foor-yay”) who made important contributions to their development. Representation of a signal in the form of a linear combination of complex sinusoids is called the Fourier Series. What this means is that you can’t just split a periodic signal into simple sines and cosines, but you can also approximately reconstruct that signal given you have information how the sines and cosines that make it up are stacked.

More Formally: Put in more formal terms, suppose $f(x)$ is a periodic function with period $2\pi$ defined in the interval $c\leq x \leq c+2\pi$ and satisfies a set of conditions called the Dirichlet’s conditions:

1. $f(x)$ is finite, single valued and its integral exists in the interval.

2. $f(x)$ has a finite number of discontinuities in the interval.

3. $f(x)$ has a finite number of extrema in that interval.

then $f(x)$ can be represented by the trigonometric series

$f(x) = \displaystyle\frac{a_0}{2} + \displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^\infty [a_n cos(nx) + b_n sin(nx) ]\qquad(1)$

The above representation of $f(x)$ is called the Fourier series and the coefficients $a_0$, $a_n$ and $b_n$ are called the fourier coefficients and are determined from $f(x)$ by Euler’s formulae. The coefficients are given as :

$a_0 = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{c}^{c+2\pi} f(x)dx$

$a_n = \displaystyle\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{c}^{c+2\pi} f(x)cos(nx)dx$

$\displaystyle b_n = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{c}^{c+2\pi} f(x)sin(nx)dx$

Note: It is common to define the above using $c = -\pi$

An example that illustrates $\qquad (1)$ or the Fourier series is:

A square wave (given in black) can be approximated to by using a series of sines and cosines (result of this summation shown in blue). Clearly in the limiting case, we could reconstruct the square wave exactly with simply sines and cosines.

_____

Though not exactly the same, the idea behind Eigenfaces is similar. The aim is to represent a face as a linear combination of a set of basis images (in the Fourier Series the bases were simply sines and cosines). That is :

$\displaystyle\Phi_i = \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{K}w_j u_j$

Where $\displaystyle \Phi_i$ represents the $i^{th}$ face with the mean subtracted from it, $w_j$ represent weights and $u_j$ the eigenvectors. If this makes somewhat sketchy sense then don’t worry. This was just like mentioning at the start what we have to do.

The big idea is that you want to find a set of images (called Eigenfaces, which are nothing but Eigenvectors of the training data) that if you weigh and add together should give you back a image that you are interested in (adding images together should give you back an image, Right?). The way you weight these basis images (i.e the weight vector) could be used as a sort of a code for that image-of-interest and could be used as features for recognition.

This can be represented aptly in a figure as:

Click to Enlarge

In the above figure, a face that was in the training database was reconstructed by taking a weighted summation of all the basis faces and then adding to them the mean face. Please note that in the figure the ghost like basis images (also called as Eigenfaces, we’ll see why they are called so) are not in order of their importance. They have just been picked randomly from a pool of 70 by me. These Eigenfaces were prepared using images  from the MIT-CBCL database (also I have adjusted the brightness of the Eigenfaces to make them clearer after obtaining them, therefore the brightness of the reconstructed image looks different than those of the basis images).

_____

An Information Theory Approach:

First of all the idea of Eigenfaces considers face recognition as a 2-D recognition problem, this is based on the assumption that at the time of recognition, faces will be mostly upright and frontal. Because of this, detailed 3-D information about the face is not needed. This reduces complexity by a significant bit.

Before the method for face recognition using Eigenfaces was introduced, most of the face recognition literature dealt with local and intuitive features, such as distance between eyes, ears and similar other features. This wasn’t very effective. Eigenfaces inspired by a method used in an earlier paper was a significant departure from the idea of using only intuitive features. It uses an Information Theory appraoch wherein the most relevant face information is encoded in a group of faces that will best distinguish the faces. It transforms the face images in to a set of basis faces, which essentially are the principal components of the face images.

The Principal Components (or Eigenvectors) basically seek directions in which it is more efficient to  represent the data. This is particularly useful for reducing the computational effort. To understand this,  suppose we get 60 such directions, out of these about 40 might be insignificant and only 20 might represent the variation in data significantly, so for calculations it would work quite well to only use the 20 and leave out the rest.  This is illustrated by this figure:

Click to Enlarge

Such an information theory approach will encode not only the local features but also the global features. Such features may or may not be intuitively understandable. When we find the principal components or the Eigenvectors of the image set, each Eigenvector has some contribution from EACH face used in the training set. So the Eigenvectors also have a face like appearance. These look ghost like and are ghost images or Eigenfaces. Every image in the training set can be represented as a weighted linear combination of these basis faces.

The number of Eigenfaces that we would obtain therefore would be equal to the number of images in the training set. Let us take this number to be $M$. Like I mentioned one paragraph before, some of these Eigenfaces are more important in encoding the variation in face images, thus we could also approximate faces using only the $K$ most significant Eigenfaces.

_____

Assumptions:

1. There are $M$ images in the training set.

2. There are $K$ most significant Eigenfaces using which we can satisfactorily approximate a face. Needless to say K < M.

3. All images are $N \times N$ matrices, which can be represented as $N^2 \times 1$ dimensional vectors. The same logic would apply to images that are not of equal length and breadths. To take an example: An image of size 112 x 112 can be represented as a vector of dimension 12544 or simply as a point in a 12544 dimensional space.

_____

Algorithm for Finding Eigenfaces:

1. Obtain $M$ training images $I_1$, $I_2$$I_M$, it is very important that the images are centered.

2. Represent each image $I_i$ as a vector $\Gamma_i$  as discussed above.

$I_i = \begin{bmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} &\ldots & a_{1N} \ a_{21} & a_{22} & \ldots & a_{2N} \ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \ a_{N1} & a_{N2} & \ldots & a_{NN}\end{bmatrix}_{N\times N} \xrightarrow{\rm concatenation} \begin{bmatrix}\ a_{11} \ \vdots \ a_{1N} \ \vdots\ a_{2N} \ \vdots \ a_{NN} \end{bmatrix}_{N^2\times 1} = \Gamma_i$

Note: Due to a recent WordPress $\LaTeX$ bug, there is some trouble with constructing matrices with multiple columns. To avoid confusion and to maintain continuity, for the time being I am posting an image for the above formula that’s showing an error message. Same goes for some formulae below in the post.

3. Find the average face vector $\Psi$.

$\Psi = \displaystyle\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^M\Gamma_i$

4. Subtract the mean face from each face vector $\Gamma_i$ to get a set of vectors $\Phi_i$. The purpose of subtracting the mean image from each image vector is to be left with only the distinguishing features from each face and “removing” in a way information that is common.

$\Phi_i = \Gamma_i - \Psi$

5. Find the Covariance matrix $C$:

$C = AA^T$, where $A=[\Phi_1, \Phi_2 \ldots \Phi_M]$

Note that the Covariance matrix has simply been made by putting one modified image vector obtained in  one column each.

Also note that $C$ is a $N^2 \times N^2$ matrix and $A$ is a $N^2\times M$ matrix.

6. We now need to calculate the Eigenvectors $u_i$ of $C$, However note that $C$ is a $N^2 \times N^2$ matrix and it would return $N^2$ Eigenvectors each being $N^2$ dimensional. For an image this number is HUGE.  The computations required would easily make your system run out of memory. How do we get around this problem?

7. Instead of the Matrix $AA^T$ consider the matrix $A^TA$. Remember $A$ is a $N^2\times M$ matrix, thus $A^TA$ is a $M\times M$ matrix. If we find the Eigenvectors of this matrix, it would return $M$ Eigenvectors, each of Dimension $M \times 1$, let’s call these Eigenvectors $v_i$.

Now from some properties of matrices, it follows that: $u_i = Av_i$. We have found out $v_i$ earlier. This implies that using $v_i$ we can calculate the M largest Eigenvectors of $AA^T$. Remember that $M\ll N^2$ as M is simply the number of training images.

8. Find the best $M$ Eigenvectors of $C=AA^T$ by using the relation discussed above. That is: $u_i = Av_i$. Also keep in mind that $\begin{Vmatrix}u_i\end{Vmatrix}=1$.

[6 Eigenfaces for the training set chosen from the MIT-CBCL database, these are not in any order]

9. Select the best $K$ Eigenvectors, the selection of these Eigenvectors is done heuristically.

_____

Finding Weights:

The Eigenvectors found at the end of the previous section, $u_i$ when converted to a matrix in a process that is reverse to that in STEP 2, have a face like appearance. Since these are Eigenvectors and have a face like appearance, they are called Eigenfaces. Sometimes, they are also called as Ghost Images because of their weird appearance.

Now each face in the training set (minus the mean), $\Phi_i$ can be represented as a linear combination of these Eigenvectors $u_i$:

$\Phi_i = \sum_{j=1}^{K}w_ju_j$m, where $u_j$ ‘s are Eigenfaces.

These weights can be calculated as :

$w_j = u_j^T\Phi_i$.

Each normalized training image is represented in this basis as a vector.

$\Omega_i = \begin{bmatrix}w_1\w_2\ \vdots \w_k\end{bmatrix}$

where i = 1,2… M. This means we have to calculate such a vector corresponding to every image in the training set and store them as templates.

_____

Now consider we have found out the Eigenfaces for the training images , their associated weights after selecting a set of most relevant Eigenfaces and have stored these vectors corresponding to each training image.

If an unknown probe face $\Gamma$ is to be recognized then:

1. We normalize the incoming probe $\Gamma$ as $\Phi = \Gamma - \Psi$.

2. We then project this normalized probe onto the Eigenspace (the collection of Eigenvectors/faces) and find out the weights.

$w_i = u_i^T\Phi$.

3. The normalized probe $\Phi$ can then simply be represented as:

$\Omega = \begin{bmatrix}w_1\w_2\vdots\w_K\end{bmatrix}$

After the feature vector (weight vector) for the probe has been found out, we simply need to classify it. For the classification task we could simply use some distance measures or use some classifier like Support Vector Machines (something that I would cover in an upcoming post). In case we use distance measures, classification is done as:

Find $e_r = min\begin{Vmatrix}\Omega - \Omega_i\end{Vmatrix}$. This means we take the weight vector of the probe we have just found out and find its distance with the weight vectors associated with each of the training image.

And if $e_r < \Theta$, where $\Theta$ is a threshold chosen heuristically, then we can say that the probe image is recognized as the image with which it gives the lowest score.

If however $e_r > \Theta$ then the probe does not belong to the database. I will come to the point on how the threshold should be chosen.

For distance measures the most commonly used measure is the Euclidean Distance. The other being the Mahalanobis Distance. The Mahalanobis distance generally gives superior performance. Let’s take a brief digression and look at these two simple distance measures and then return to the task of choosing a threshold.

_____

Distance Measures:

Euclidean Distance: The Euclidean Distance is probably the most widely used distance metric. It is a special case of a general class of norms and is given as:

$\displaystyle\begin{Vmatrix}x-y\end{Vmatrix}_e = \displaystyle\sqrt{\begin{vmatrix}x_i-y_i\end{vmatrix}^2}$

The Mahalanobis Distance: The Mahalanobis Distance is a better distance measure when it comes to pattern recognition problems. It takes into account the covariance between the variables and hence removes the problems related to scale and correlation that are inherent with the Euclidean Distance. It is given as:

$d(x,y) =\sqrt{ (x-y)^TC^{-1}(x-y)}$

Where $C$ is the covariance between the variables involved.

_____

Deciding on the Threshold:

Why is the threshold, $\Theta$ important?

Consider for simplicity we have ONLY 5 images in the training set. And a probe that is not in the training set comes up for the recognition task. The score for each of the 5 images will be found out with the incoming probe. And even if an image of the probe is not in the database, it will still say the probe is recognized as the training image with which its score is the lowest. Clearly this is an anomaly that we need to look at. It is for this purpose that we decide the threshold. The threshold $\Theta$ is decided heuristically.

Click to Enlarge

Now to illustrate what I just said, consider a simpson image as a non-face image, this image will be scored with each of the training images. Let’s say $S_4$ is the lowest score out of all. But the probe image is clearly not beloning to the database. To choose the threshold we choose a large set of random images (both face and non-face), we then calculate the scores for images of people in the database and also for this random set and set the threshold $\Theta$ (which I have mentioned in the “recognition” part above) accordingly.

_____

More on the Face Space:

To conclude this post, here is a brief discussion on the face space.

[Image Source – [1]]

Consider a simplified representation of the face space as shown in the figure above. The images of a face, and in particular the faces in the training set should lie near the face space. Which in general describes images that are face like.

The projection distance $e_r$ should be under a threshold $\Theta$ as already seen. The images of known individual fall near some face class in the face space.

There are four possible combinations on where an input image can lie:

1. Near a face class and near the face space : This is the case when the probe is nothing but the facial image of a known individual (known = image of this person is already in the database).

2. Near face space but away from face class : This is the case when the probe image is of a person (i.e a facial image), but does not belong to anybody in the database i.e away from any face class.

3. Distant from face space and near face class : This happens when the probe image is not of a face however it still resembles a particular face class stored in the database.

4. Distant from both the face space and face class: When the probe is not a face image i.e is away from the face space and is nothing like any face class stored.

Out of the four, type 3 is responsible for most false positives. To avoid them, face detection is recommended to be a part of such a system.

_____

References and Important Papers

1.Face Recognition Using Eigenfaces, Matthew A. Turk and Alex P. Pentland, MIT Vision and Modeling Lab, CVPR ’91.

2. Eigenfaces Versus Fischerfaces : Recognition using Class Specific Linear Projection, Belhumeur, Hespanha, Kreigman, PAMI ’97.

3. Eigenfaces for Recognition, Matthew A. Turk and Alex P. Pentland, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience ’91.

_____

Related Posts:

_____

MATLAB Codes:

I suppose the MATLAB codes for the above are available on atleast 2-3 locations around the internet.

However it might be useful to put out some starter code. Note that the variables have the same names as those in the description above.You may use this mat file for testing. These are the labels for that mat file.

%This is the starter code for only the part for finding eigenfaces.
%In this case load the .mat filed attached above.
% use reshape command to see an image which is stored as a row in the above.

% The code is only skeletal.
% Find psi - mean image
Psi_train = mean(features_faces')';
% Find Phi - modified representation of training images.
% 548 is the total number of training images.
for i = 1:548
Phi(:,i) = raw_features(:,i) - Psi_train;
end
% Create a matrix from all modified vector images
A = Phi;
% Find covariance matrix using trick above
C = A'*A;
[eig_mat, eig_vals] = eig(C);
% Sort eigen vals to get order
eig_vals_vect = diag(eig_vals);
[sorted_eig_vals, eig_indices] = sort(eig_vals_vect,'descend');
sorted_eig_mat = zeros(548);
for i=1:548
sorted_eig_mat(:,i) = eig_mat(:,eig_indices(i));
end
% Find out Eigen faces
Eig_faces = (A*sorted_eig_mat);
size_Eig_faces=size(Eig_faces);
% Display an eigenface using the reshape command.

% Find out weights for all eigenfaces
% Each column contains weight for corresponding image
W_train = Eig_faces'*Phi;
face_fts = W_train(1:250,:)'; % features using 250 eigenfaces.

_____
Onionesque Reality Home >>